George Prowse wrote:
> What about finding out how many ATs are going to be using it at the
> start and limiting the amount of ATs with access to <40-50 until
> either a new way for access has been decided on or new equipment has
> been brought it. Currently I wouldn't need it because I am without
On 23/11/05, Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Ostrow wrote:
>
> > Lance:
> >
> > I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand
> > that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I
> > believe that this was the original intention at least.
Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> Lance:
>
> I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand
> that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I
> believe that this was the original intention at least...someone correct
> me if I am wrong.
One of the issues we had with
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:38:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> And herein I think lies some confusion. Personally if I were an AT both
> would be important but more to the point the "more up to date" issue
> would be the most important.
I agree -- this was the main point of the o
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 17:56 -0600, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:32:55 +1100
> > Ben Skeggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Anyway, the most important reason for the GLEP (IMO) is giving AT's
> >>r/o access to CVS. When working on bugs, it's alway
